Elton John is a dad

[hvp05]

They should just get a couple of Ken dolls.

I wonder if they would have had the child aborted if it was handicapped? Maybe they had the gay gene DNA implanted.

Talk about "weird".

Who knows, but bottom line for me is he is not a role model for my kids to aspire to even if my kids end up being gay.

I'm sure he would be devastated to know.

I would be interested to know how many people would not view YOU as a role model if your personal life were splashed all over the Interweb. Hmm...

 

[ImnoMensa]

You're being an ahole. Bann made an excellent point and you chose to disregard it because you can't stand the thought of gay men raising a child. But the fact is, and she pointed this out to you quite nicely, that hetero men can be poor fathers and do it quite frequently. Women can be terrible mothers, but by all accounts Melissa Etheridge and Julie Cypher are wonderful mothers to their children.

So get over it. Being gay has nothing to do with parenting skills. You just hate homosexuals.

Where is the Seinfeld refrain "Not that there is anything wrong with that?"

I doubt he hates homosexuals individually, more than likely he hates the sin and not the sinner.

By the way he does have that right, despite the political correct acceptance by so many in this new liberalised world we live in.There are many people still existent that disagree with it. Some of us actually believe that heterosexual couples should get married before having kids. Shame on us. Yes I know Elton and his partner are "married". That's another joke.

We all have the right to object to Homosexuals raising kids.
Because someone feels that kids should have the right to a real Mom and Dad, and not some family fantasy of two men or two women who play at whichever particular role they wish to adopt in the relationship, it doesn't make someone a bad person not to agree with such a scam.Sure there are bad marriages and Dads who run off. There are Moms that run off too.It doesn't disprove the concept. Some of those Moms and Dads who ran off took up with a homosexual and tried that for a while then took off again. There are always anomaly's. There are thousands of single parent families.

My objections to Homosexuals raising kids is that they will be affected by the environment they are raised in watching two men or two women show affection in front of them they will believe that a normal thing. They will believe that two men or two women making love is the way it's normally done.
Those that accept homosexuality as normal do not find this a problem.

At one time in society's norm. most people did not accept homosexuality. It was recognised by Psychiatrists as a perversion. Today many people in this forum condemn as bigots and haters anyone who does not agree with them that the preference is perfectly normal and a great way to live.

One day with the help of Homosexual classes in the schools, the acceptance of it in society, the great liberal thinkers of today will ensure that it is universally accepted, but that hasn't happened yet and we free thinkers that do not accept the great benefits of a homosexual lifestyle are condemned as bigots and haters.

So be it. Sticks and stones.

 

[vraiblonde]

By the way he does have that right, despite the political correct acceptance by so many in this new liberalised world we live in.

Yes, he does have that right. And I have the right to object to his objection. While you all are enjoying your free speech, I hope you don't mind if I enjoy mine as well.

 

[ImnoMensa]

Yes, he does have that right. And I have the right to object to his objection. While you all are enjoying your free speech, I hope you don't mind if I enjoy mine as well.

I am not objecting to your opinion, only your calling him an a-hole because his does not agree with yours.

 

[Merlin99]

Anyone else think this sounds like JPC?

Just did a search on JPC. Too Funny and it just shows that some can't argue the counter point against my position. Must be a White Hockey Skate owner.


Rainbow Cupcakes and White Hockey Skates for all!

I don't have a problem with it when any other (hetero) family does it, why should I have a problem with them doing it? What is the deal with skates? I haven't owned a pair in 30 years.

 

[vraiblonde]

I am not objecting to your opinion, only your calling him an a-hole because his does not agree with yours.

Really? And how is that different from you calling gay people perverts and likening them to pedophiles and necrophiliacs because you don't agree with them?

 

[Larry Gude]

At one time in society's norm. most people did not accept homosexuality. It was recognised by Psychiatrists as a perversion. Today many people in this forum condemn as bigots and haters anyone who does not agree with them that the preference is perfectly normal and a great way to live.

Uh, no. The objection to you homophobes comes from your complete lack of intellectual consistency, claiming at once to both be supporters of the constitution while wishing to use it to limit rights of individuals who don't live their life as you do; the very thing the constitution was designed to preserve and defend.

Gay is nothing new under this sun. Psychiatric classification of it as some sort of disease is something new. So is the argument that alcoholism is a disease and obesity and smoking and laziness and bad breathe. And inability to pay ones bills on time. And that boys stare at the window and would rather be playing than sitting in class. And like guns over Barbies.

People are gay. People like to smoke. Like to drink. Can be lazy. Like football. Or not. Like big butts. Or little ones. Or tend to like more or less feminine women. Or men.

Among all of societies 'ills' and better or worse choices, homosexuals get inordinate attention and loathing around here never mind their sexual preferences have nothing to do with the housing bubble, the advent of Social Security and it's ensuing obsolescence, reductions of free speech, chicken hawks who fight half assed wars, oil dependency or the DH rule.

Now, I will sit back and watch you argue that, in fact, queers caused all those problems. And more.

I think obsession with other peoples business is a disease.

 

[vraiblonde]

Uh, no. The objection to you homophobes comes from your complete lack of intellectual consistency, claiming at once to both be supporters of the constitution while wishing to use it to limit rights of individuals who don't live their life as you do; the very thing the constitution was designed to preserve and defend.

 

[Christy]

Uh, no. The objection to you homophobes comes from your complete lack of intellectual consistency, claiming at once to both be supporters of the constitution while wishing to use it to limit rights of individuals who don't live their life as you do; the very thing the constitution was designed to preserve and defend.

Gay is nothing new under this sun. Psychiatric classification of it as some sort of disease is something new. So is the argument that alcoholism is a disease and obesity and smoking and laziness and bad breathe. And inability to pay ones bills on time. And that boys stare at the window and would rather be playing than sitting in class. And like guns over Barbies.

People are gay. People like to smoke. Like to drink. Can be lazy. Like football. Or not. Like big butts. Or little ones. Or tend to like more or less feminine women. Or men.

Among all of societies 'ills' and better or worse choices, homosexuals get inordinate attention and loathing around here never mind their sexual preferences have nothing to do with the housing bubble, the advent of Social Security and it's ensuing obsolescence, reductions of free speech, chicken hawks who fight half assed wars, oil dependency or the DH rule.

Now, I will sit back and watch you argue that, in fact, queers caused all those problems. And more.

I think obsession with other peoples business is a disease.

Very good post Larry.

 

[Bann]

Nothing like a good road trip, but you have to be a normal guy to understand that.

Go ahead and mock my example, as you know nothing about the situation except what I shared for my point. Which is -he is a #### of a father, and the kids DON'T COME FIRST. HE DOES.

Here, I fixed this:


Elton John and his partner WANT A CHILD. Pick any child. How about that one over there.

What is wanted is a token. Something to bring them closer to being like a real couple. They should just get a couple of Ken dolls.

I wonder if they would have had the child aborted if it was handicapped? Maybe they had the gay gene DNA implanted. Who knows, but bottom line for me is he is not a role model for my kids to aspire to even if my kids end up being gay.

It's not about the kid, its about them.

You're making all sorts of wild assumptions to try and fit your point. But whatever.

And BTW, my older son IS disabled. And his father has little input in his life. His choice. So .... it's not about the kid(s) [and what's best for them] it's about him.

 

[Bann]

Guess what, only being mom with work. If dads a jerk, the kids know it and if you are decent, they will make you their role model. (just think about all those killers out there that say "I love you Mom" just before they get the chair).

My experience is that Mothers are too hard on themselves. There have been studies on mothers and kids where the kid was set on fire by the mother and the kid still loved the mother. Back to the point, this kid has no mother. The most important person in his life. Money can not buy that.

From link below:

In her book, Necessary Losses, Judith Viorst tells this story:
.
A young boy lies in a hospital bed. He is frightened and in pain. Burns cover 40 percent of his small body. Someone has doused him with alcohol and then, unimaginably, has set him on fire.
.
He cries for his mother. His mother has set him on fire.
.
It doesn't seem to matter what kind of mother a child has lost, or how perilous it may be to dwell in her presence. It doesn't matter whether she hurts or hugs. Separation from mother is worse than being in her arms when the bombs are exploding. Separation from mother is sometimes worse than being with her when she is the bomb.


To a certain extent, they are stealing this kid away from his mother. What do you think of people that would take babies from their mother? But hey, everyone looks at it from the adult point of view and says, gees, they have the money. Gees, they will love the kid.

Checkout Nancy Verrier books like Primal Womb

Adoption: The Primal Wound

 

[Bann]

Uh, no. The objection to you homophobes comes from your complete lack of intellectual consistency, claiming at once to both be supporters of the constitution while wishing to use it to limit rights of individuals who don't live their life as you do; the very thing the constitution was designed to preserve and defend.

I think obsession with other peoples business is a disease.

 

[hvp05]

WARNING: The following videos inspire shameful individuality, rampant self-confidence and fearless enjoyment of life.



Oh yeah, you might see a gay kiss in each also.

 

[ImnoMensa]

Uh, no. The objection to you homophobes comes from your complete lack of intellectual consistency, claiming at once to both be supporters of the constitution while wishing to use it to limit rights of individuals who don't live their life as you do; the very thing the constitution was designed to preserve and defend.

Gay is nothing new under this sun. Psychiatric classification of it as some sort of disease is something new. So is the argument that alcoholism is a disease and obesity and smoking and laziness and bad breathe. And inability to pay ones bills on time. And that boys stare at the window and would rather be playing than sitting in class. And like guns over Barbies.

People are gay. People like to smoke. Like to drink. Can be lazy. Like football. Or not. Like big butts. Or little ones. Or tend to like more or less feminine women. Or men.

Among all of societies 'ills' and better or worse choices, homosexuals get inordinate attention and loathing around here never mind their sexual preferences have nothing to do with the housing bubble, the advent of Social Security and it's ensuing obsolescence, reductions of free speech, chicken hawks who fight half assed wars, oil dependency or the DH rule.

Now, I will sit back and watch you argue that, in fact, queers caused all those problems. And more.

I think obsession with other peoples business is a disease.

We homophobes always find that people who think they are intellectuals will accept almost anything.

Great to sit and watch as the intelligentsia continues to lead us into the great moral morass we are sliding into.

If obsession with other people's business is a disease you have it bad.
You seem to worry a lot about we people who dont accept everything you do.

 

[Bann]

Sorry, did not mean for you to take that personally. Roadtrips and explosives are a common bonding experience for most boys.

I didn't take it personally, nor were my feelings hurt. It's difficult to account for every minute detail in the situation in a post. Besides, most posters reading could care less to read them.

But to further explain my previous post - YOU picked up on the point YOU saw - not the point I was making. Which was that the EX changed plans at the last minute ("his own weird thing") and returned the children by way of car (on Dec. 31 - instead of the previously discussed airplane trip on Jan. 2)- basically for no other reason than out of spite for me. (which was fine, as I was planning on being home anyway-but he never even checked if I had plans to be in town!) The road trip was not a reason to bond with his children.

Our visitation agreement is quite different than most - for reasons which are personal, but when made 6 years ago, revolved around Thing1's disability. However, people who know me can attest that I have never denied him visitation. Ever. He basically has unlimited visitation rights which he does not access unless it is expedient for him.

Glad to here you are being responsible for your kids. Sorry to hear that their father is not. Hopefully someone else is helping you out.

Me, my self and I. For almost 6 years now. Are you implying I need someone else to help me, because that's what I inferred from your post.

So Elton John might make a better dad than your ex. That is all you needed to post in the thread. You situation does not change the point that Elton John used a surrogate to give birth and the possible options as to why he did it.

That I didn't state something the way you think I should does not change what I said. By giving my examples, I did say that EJ might make a better dad than my ex!

 

[Bann]

I disagree with this. I believe that the Constitution does not address acceptance or rejection of behavioral issues as a protected right.



Drinking to much coffee is considered a addict classification in the DMS II. Your point is well taken and actually supports my position that being gay is a lifestyle choice.

You meant DSM-II, yes?


What difference does it make if it is a lifestyle choice or not? Does it affect you Constitutionally?

 

[Bann]

IMO, behavior, like if you eat fish or are attracted to the same sex, is not a Constitutional issue. Making it that weakens the intent of the Constitution.

Yes, I fat fingered DSM. I do that often.

Well, I'm not trying to make sex, attraction to the same sex or otherwise, marriage, adopting children, having surrogate children a Constitutional issue. :shrug:

 

[hvp05]

The reason for it here is some entertainers choice to buck the natural process of how a child is created, put egg and sperm in a test tube and implant it in a surrogate women. The whole plastic process is very sick and scary in my book.

You can call it a "plastic process", but the result is a very real, normal human child. The process should be of much less concern to you than how the child is treated once born, especially as long as the process has no negative impact on you personally.

Let me ask: have you ever worn glasses, taken a medication or worn a band-aid? All those things alter the natural 'process' too. :shrug:

An yes, there are people that would not have me as a role model, but as long as I am there for my kids, who gives a rat's ass.

Precisely!

Now go back and read the first paragraph again... then try to figure out how these two pieces fit together.

Hey, someone gets it.

It's funny how you have tried to brush off the idea that you are anti-homosexual... yet the only person who has agreed with you in this thread is an anti-homosexual.

 

[Lenny]

It's funny how you have tried to brush off the idea that you are anti-homosexual... yet the only person who has agreed with you in this thread is an anti-homosexual.

Is this that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" reasoning?

 

[ImnoMensa]

I guess it is where you draw the line, a band aid to putting a child/adult to psychological abusing. Disrespect toward the natural process of life creation is what it is all about. It a complex issue that you can not understand if you have not researched this issue out.

As for the anti-homosexual agreeing me me, so what. Still does not make your position any more correct.

So now we are down to the Nitty-Gritty.

People are either anti homosexual, or pro-homosexual.

Nothing in between.

No more discussion, no more opinions allowed ,or wanted. Just Pro Homosexual or anti- homosexual.

That's cool.